Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Sexercises

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Richard 07:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles le Gai Eaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of any notability within article that has remained a stub now for over a year Sefringle^Talk 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - according to the article at least he's an author, journalist and diplomat. Being a stub, in itself, is not a reason for non-notability Misheu 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the only source in the article is islamreligion.com, not a reliable source, and this source doesn't prove notability.--Sefringle^Talk 05:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is most mentioned on Islamic websites, but his books are sold on Amazon and from comments about him he is a respected author in Muslim circles Misheu 08:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mentioned in passing here, an article which is copied several places online, but no other results in Google News Archive except some paywalled mentions in the Daily Gleaner (Jamaica) where he's a functionary for the UK Foreign Office, something like a USAID country director. Not a notable diplomat in other words. Fails primary subject criterion of WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep paywalled articles are not non-notable, and the Daily Gleaner is a well-known major publication. Q-News though not well-known appears a high quality publication. A country director for the USAID or equivalent is I think notable. As Misheu says, an author published and known mainly in Muslim circles is no less notable than one known in the US. DGG 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't say that paywalled articles failed RS or anything. I just meant I couldn't link to them or access the full text myself. One was a society page and the other mentioned that he was doing some negotiations with the Governor-General (according to the Google results page), possibly in connection with forthcoming Jamaican independence. As for being a notable Muslim author, we should have reliable sources for that. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I will second Misheu, he is a well known author among Muslim circles as is evident from any online search.Nazli 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and from one of the references, Sunday Times: "Many converts have been inspired by the writings of Charles Le Gai Eaton, a former Foreign Office diplomat. Eaton, author of Islam and the Destiny of Man, said: ??I have received letters from people who are put off by the wishy-washy standards of contemporary Christianity and they are looking for a religion which does not compromise too much with the modern world" DGG 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CVL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Junior basketball league. Not a particularly essential topic for the world. 650l2520 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete junior league. Monkwearmouth Mohawks is a great name though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Light aircraft carrier 70.55.200.47 03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do not redirect as proposed: a quick google shows CVL stands for lots of things besides aircraft carriers (a dab page could be created perhaps). Note: CVL is the airport code for Cape Vogel, Papua New Guinea. Carlossuarez46 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create a DAB page per Carolossuarez46. 132.205.44.5 01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Ocatecir^T 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Northcutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Article also provides little information outside of the championships that he's won and that his hometown was destroyed by a Hurricane Katrina. Nenog 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reasonable achievements and sources. John Vandenberg 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Half of those aren't about this Kevin Northcutt, and the other half just mention him in passing. Names in a results show do not make a wrestler notable. Darrenhusted 12:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course I am referring to the 15 mentions on http://ProWrestling.com/. [1] , and the results on SLAM! John Vandenberg 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No one doubts he is a wrestler, and by that logic he will wrestle, and at some point will appear in wrestling results, but that does not then make the jump up to deserves an article. Darrenhusted 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would NWA World Tag Team Championship not be a national professional title? Also, is Canadian Wrestling Federation not a national pro promotion? John Vandenberg 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing, http://prowrestling.wikia.com/ may be interested in taking this article in the event that this needs to be deleted. John Vandenberg 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons given by John Vandenberg. There is no reason for the Wrestling Project's deletionism to include this article. DanZero 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the rampant creation of non notable wrestler bios is the reason for the project's current round of AfDs. There are a few user's out there who need to read WP:NOT to understand that Wikpedia is not a place for any old page, and the goal for each page is improvement, not simply creation. Darrenhusted 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepNeeds to be re-written but notable in the world of wrestling.Callelinea 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, re-written, try written. There is nothing but a list of championships, for a 13 year veteran this is not enough for notability. Darrenhusted 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Arson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable as a wrestler, made only one appearance in WWE. Nenog 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's the Zombie! The Zombie! You have got to be fucking kidding me that he doesn't deserve an article. He gets well over 750 hits on google "ECW Zombie" and is a very popular wrestler. Dannycali 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: could someone explain why his role in ECW and others is not notable? There is a reasonable amount of media coverage of this. John Vandenberg 10:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer He was on one episode of ECW, he lost to the Sandman, he was never seen again, each week on HeAt there are six or seven jobbers, some of who wrestle several times, and they are not notable. He is an indy wrestler with a novel TV appearance, the bar for notablitity within Pro-Wrestling is higher than that. Darrenhusted 12:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: the article says "He was the first wrestler to walk out for a match on ECW on Sci Fi. He would even wrestle in the very first match, losing a short squash to The Sandman." Im not 100% sure what that means, but it sounds like he was involved in the first fight on ECW on Sci Fi. Is that correct? I would expect that the details of the first fight would be mentioned in the article ECW on Sci Fi. John Vandenberg 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I have just noticed that he twice won a title in a World Wrestling Council, a Puerto Rico pro league. Doesnt that mean he meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) for Athletes... "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis" ? John Vandenberg 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Using that logic then ALL professional wrestlers are notable because they compete for a "fully professional league", that only works where the "amateur" and "pro" version of the sports are sufficiently similar. MPJ-DK 11:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MPJ-DK 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arson has been successful down in Puerto Rico in addition to his memorable stint as The Zombie for the WWE's ECW. DanZero 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Salantri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nobility is that he was under a WWE developmental contact for almost two years but never called up. Nenog 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MPJ-DK 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Armour of the Universal Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article created by a user who has been blocked for repeatedly re-creating deleted material. This article is a case in point, being an amalgamation of two articles which had been deleted at this AfD and this one. As it has some argument about notability in its edit history, I bring it to AfD. Quite apart from its history, it's not sourced by anything out-of-universe, with consequent worries about WP:V and WP:OR. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In-universe timeline with probably irrelevant sources- after a few days, the creator just threw in {{UCMobileWeaponsRef}}.--Wafulz 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is useless and is against the WP:GUNDAM actions of grouping. Told the user to stop, but he/she just keep ignoring all other editors. MythSearcher^talk 02:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be a worthless piece, ad as Myth said above, it's being done by users who don't know wp's notability guidelines. David Fuchs 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, doesn't assert independent notability as a surname. Of course, prod would have worked as well. Sr13 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhaury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy delete. It is a surname of some families in India but no one is Wikipedia has it. My surname is a disambiguation page. 650l2520 23:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of surnames. Most surnames are disambiguation pages, unless they are exceptionally notable. This should have been prodded. utcursch | talk 06:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Ocatecir^T 23:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feenie's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ignoring the advert language, it does not seem to be a notable restaurant 650l2520 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep- Even though it was written like a advertisment (or at least a narative) it was featured on a Food Network show giving it some notability POV check more in order than deletion ChrisLamb 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a well known restaurant in Vancouver. But the article definitely needs to be rewritten. Canuck85 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable but poorly written. Callelinea 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to notable chef Rob Feenie. Really, the restaurant is famous because of its chef. Canuckle 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water brash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is just a Dictionay definition. 650l2520 23:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This is not ecyclopidic content ChrisLamb 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. --David Andreas 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wholly unreferenced with no evidence of notability. Originally {{prod}}ded [2] with: "Questionable notability, no reliable sources", deletion endorsed [3], removed [4] w/o comment. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and delete the Sim Street episodes guide as well. No notability has been established. No independent coverage. They both seem to be blow by blow, uncited repositories of copyvio images from http://simstreet.simtv.co.uk/ The whole thing isn't actually a video, but a player created story mixed with screenshots from The Sims placed in comic book fashion. These articles seem to be one big copyright violation because of the usage of the screenshots and the non-summarized plots and character descriptions. --Dual Freq 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sim Brother, Crystal Town and Downtownies as well as the other episodes linked from Sim Media. Apparently this is just one part of an effort to create fan site articles for a bunch of non-notable The Sims fan fictions. They are full of copyvio screen caps as well. --Dual Freq 23:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete TV shows using game engines isn't uncommon nor unpopular. Red vs. Blue has its own article and is a popular and notable comedy using the Halo engine. Sim Street is rather new but gaining some attention. However, the aforementioned issues on copyright violations is a major problem that needs attention. If the copyright holders release the images under GFDL then this could potentially remain; but until then, I believe this page should be blanked. --David Andreas 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, they are not actually videos, it is a text script of a "show" with screencaps mixed in. Don't these have to have some kind of external coverage from news papers or major blogs to be notable? Seems like this series of articles is either a big copyvio or a spam type attempt to drum up traffic to the site. --Dual Freq 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and Sim Street episodes; no evidence of notability. —Psychonaut 20:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see also Downtownies for more of the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Recreation of deleted material, keep comment not in line with policy. — Ocatecir^T 23:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Payne: Payne & Redemption - The Independent Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article to promote a non-notable "independent film" about a copyrighted video-game character. It's apparently written by an eye-witness (User:Dark_Prowler (contr, single purpose account.)). Abu badali ^(talk) 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Film is not notable, but probably should be mentionned in Max Payne--JForget 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should only be mentioned if it's of any relevance for Max Payne. I would says that's something for Max Payne's editors to decide. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article creator (and sole contributor) already tried to mention to this movie in Max Payne [5] [6], but it seems it was removed. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Just noticed this: The article is a recreation (with a slightly different name) of an article previously deleted in a completely uncontroversial afd. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film IS notable and should NOT be deleted!

• Pretty much all of the Payne & Redemption crew have IMDB profiles.
• Payne & Redemption is spoken about all over the internet, and is one of the most eagerly anticipated game-character-to-movie adaptations.
• An interview with writer & director Fergle Gibson was featured in an issue of PC Zone, a well-known, popular UK gaming magazine.
• The film has an official website that is known amongst the ENTIRE Max Payne community, including Thomas Fenton (screenwriter of the official 20th Century Fox movie), who has made this known on the official Payne & Redemption MySpace website.
• The trailer to Payne & Redemption was viewed over twenty-three-thousand times on Youtube.com alone within the first week of its release.
• SAM LAKE, creator of Max Payne and writer of the video games, condones and supports the project.

So I ask you, how is this film NOT notable?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark_Prowler (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in Chief (TV Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. As the article states, this TV movie of the ABC TV series Commander in Chief was "rumored" for about six months before it was announced the project was cancelled. It never even went into pre-production, and the most of the content is speculation and guesswork based on mentions in Geena Davis interviews. Canley 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Projects like this get proposed and then axed all the time. It's the nature of the industry. If it matters enough to mention at all, it can fit as a sentence or two in the TV series's article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as wholly non-notable. This would warrant a note or a section at Commander in Chief, but not a separate article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and because the couple of sentences already in the series article is more than enough to cover the topic. Otto4711 22:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My initial thought was to merge, but Commander in Chief already covers what would be 'merge-able' from this, at least until something more solid/definite is forthcoming. SkierRMH 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 02:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not delete. Please work out redirection on the talk pages -- Y not? 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Henthorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No independent references, and therefore fails to estabish notability. Clearly written by somebody with an interest in the subject; check out their other contributions here and consider whether they might fail the same test. Chris 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. changed to Delete. Looks like created as spam, but I added a source for the NCAA Jamal Crawford controversy (I didn't add a DUI as I don't know if it's the same guy). The press does describe him as a "communications mogul" and an industry expert (sample) so a clean-ed up version could potentially pass notability. Canuckle 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment All WP articles are written by people with an interest in the subject. That's not a reason for particular suspicion. AGF. DGG 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • another comment That's interest as in vested or conflict of Chris 08:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Canuckle 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- Canuckle 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Reeltime.com. There's not really much content here, and what little there is is written poorly and feels aggrandized. Examples: He is apparently a pioneer in his field, has unspecified-but-worth-mentioning achievements in it, and contributes "a fresh viewpoint and vision towards the future".-Wafulz 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The entire Career section is a copy-and-paste from his corporate bio at [7] Canuckle 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per User:Wafulz suggestion. --David Andreas 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP very weak. needs to be rewritten Callelinea 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Has at least a little bit of non-self-serving and notable information on it that may be of interest. By the way, I strenuously disagree with the suggestion to redirect to Reeltime.com, since merging the articles would result in off-topic material on the Reeltime.com article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keap, poorly written, needs more sources, but he seams to be notable. Callelinea 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I changed my vote above to delete. No new, strong evidence has been provided to bolster his business notability and I'm too tired of fighting the spammer to continue. Salt it. Canuckle 23:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI - Creator had changed and deleted AfD tag so I put it back on and reported them to admin. Canuckle 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salting will not help. There are several other articles that that particular editor has continued to spam similar material on, and salting this article will simply move his efforts to those articles. By the way, I have reverted the article back to my most recent edit, in which I attempted to rectify some of the more serious problems with the article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily Deleted --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleORB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a computer related article that appears to lack reliable sources. A Google News Seach comes up with 377 results with the Wikipedia article followed by forum posts. Google News or Google News archive comes up with nothing. The article concludes with the developer's name and a message to contact the developer as it is not yet available on publicly accessible sites. Capitalistroadster 21:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:NOT a free web host. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as {{db-spam}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Richard 07:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Michael Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a vanity article. It is a fairly long article which goes into significant detail about the man's childhood, while there is little about why he is notable. The little about his notability says that he has done well in IQ tests and formulated a theory. The theory has been hotly debated on wikipedia and deleted, so clearly is not counted as notable by wikipedians. Simply doing well on IQ tests is also not enough to deserve such a detailed article, unlike vos Savant this has not made him famous. The article itself has obviously been subject to a lot of POV editing, two users are blocked due to suspicions that they are Langan himself, and the discussion page is over three times longer than the article itself. Which is perhaps why it is longer and more detailed than pages dedicated to Nobel prize winners. 4MillLane 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an editing dispute--there's an immense amount of dispute on this at the talk page. do we delete pages to stop editing disputes? There are sources, and it has presently content all of which seems to have been approved of or derived from material published by the subject, and so doesn't violate BLP with respect to him. But I've removed a paragraph of text where he talks about his relations in a way which clearly violates BLP with respect to them. DGG 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I perhaps should have been more concise with my complaint. I simply think this article fails WP:BIO 4MillLane 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable looney. Nick mallory 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per mainstream media coverage. Langan is notable for (1) being billed as possibly "the smartest man in America", with an IQ reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at 195, and (2) combining that IQ with (a) a childhood of poverty and abuse and a working-class lifestyle and brawny physique, with jobs as a bouncer and horse rancher, and (b) a philosophical "theory of everything", his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, among his claims for which are that it proves the existence of God. (We should present this material neutrally, of course.) He easily meets WP:BIO, which says that a person is generally notable if they have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Media coverage of Langan includes:

• Sager, Mike. (November 1999). "The Smartest Man in America". Esquire.
• McFadden, Cynthia. (9 December 1999). "The Smart Guy". 20/20.
• Wigmore, Barry. (7 February 2000). "Einstein's brain, King Kong's body". The Times.
• O'Connell, Jeff. (May 2001). "Mister Universe". Muscle & Fitness.
• Brabham, Dennis. (21 August 2001). "The Smart Guy". Newsday.
• Quain, John R. (14 October 2001). "Wise Guy" (Interview with Christopher Langan and Science Works in Mysterious Ways). Popular Science.
• Preston, Ray (15 November 2006). "Meet the Smartest Man in America". News 4 St. Louis. KMOV.

Tim Smith 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the guy has had that many articles written specifically about him over a period of years, he passes WP:BIO with flying colours. All these sources are reliable third parties; this is how notability is assessed. --Charlene 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfies WP:BIO by having articles from a variety of reliable and independent sources over a 7 year period or longer. He is said to have a high IQ of 195 or so. Whether or not true, that has been reported in numerous reliable sources. He is said to have left college after a year or so and to have been working as a bouncer, and to have a theory of cosmology, or of reality, or whatever, which has been written about in the popular press, but not published in a refereed journal. Before voting, please take a scan of the references, and of the talk page with its 3 archives, including input by User:Jimbo Wales and several other well known Wikipedians. I have to say, he seems less kooky and way smarter than the average kook, and somewhat notable based on wide reportage over an extended period. Edison 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability clearly established through sources, regardless of whether some people consider him "kooky." Clearly he is an unusual combination of things--bouncer, smart-guy, cosmic philosophico-theorist of some kind. He has also been the subject of a documentary by Academy-award winning director Errol Morris. The length of the talk page is irrelevant (as many other articles prove). The main reason the talk page has been so hotly debated is that some editors (falsely) believe Langan is an advocate of intelligent design, and thus take him as a legitimate target in their war against creationism. These arguments have been settled and the article stabilized. One can only hope that this AfD does not represent the beginning of another utterly pointless campaign against the subject of this article. Also, I cannot help but notice that opening this AfD was the very first edit by user 4MillLane, which suggests the distinct possibility that this is a bad faith AfD. BCST2001 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it's his first edit is not grounds to abandon WP:AGF. I assure you there are many of us who think articles like this are ridiculous.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is not about "articles like this"; it is about this article. I am not abandoning good faith, but I remain convinced that the fact it is the first edit coming from this user is relevant in evaluating this nomination for deletion. BCST2001 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, if you prefer references specifically to "this article," then I'll assure you many of us think "this article" is utterly ridiculous. FWIW, "articles like this" are part of the reason Wikipedia is viewed so poorly in many academic circles. There is a fundamental misconception here that a score on an IQ test means something. If this supposedly clever fellow actually did something with his brain, then his IQ might be an interesting footnote. By itself, this measure is meaningless. I won't bother arguing further as I know this article will inevitably be kept. I regret that Wikipedia doesn't have higher standards.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no doubt this article will be kept given the media coverage, coupled with the sad assumption that media coverage somehow makes this fellow historically notable. However, I feel obliged to remark that anyone who says "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics," is unworthy of discussion, yet alone an article. He might like to brush up on his Frege, Russell, or Godel and perhaps read some Turing while he's at it. As for his "IQ," Richard Feynman, among the top minds of the past (or any other) century, had his "IQ" measured in the 130s. Go figure. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep If it goes, it's no big lose. But the guy really isn't "non-notable." He's really just as notable as the tallest person in the world was. Maybe more so. So keep but don't care much if its deleted. Bulldog123 08:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the analogy is apt. The primary difference is IQ is an artificial construct that is highly controversial, whereas height is a naturally occurring metric that provides scientific information about human growth distributions. As far as I know, there is no controversy about the meaning of "height."--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I WP:PRODed this and it was deleted and recreated, so bringing it here. I can't remember exactly what I said in my prod statement, but it was probably along the lines of "Having looked for sources M. Morrison does not appear to be the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable ones. Please note IMDB is not a reliable source." Pan Dan 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see where he's notable, and the article reads a whole lot like a resume. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "His most notable role to date would have to be the photo double for Steve Carrell"? That's not a role. Non-notable. Even if we did take IMDb into account, his resume is peppered with extra work and "uncredited".--Ispy1981 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete The IMDb listing is messed up - a number of his roles, including at least two leading roles, are listed under "Self" when they actually aren't "self" appearances. I'm still not convinced he passes WP:BIO, though, although I'm not strident either way. --Charlene 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing there, but the level of detail given the lack of sources would confirm initial suspicions of conflict of interest - created by single purpose account with subject's own surname. Ohconfucius 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide some more compelling arguments in favor of keeping, other than that it should remain? I encourage you, please locate those references. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\^talk 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Palfrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

After a month, this page still makes no case for notability, features no citations, orphaned, and little more content than a list of three presumably non-notable books. MrZaius^talk 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn, concerns adequately met. MrZaius^talk 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm reminded of the VISA commercials where they'd talk about some far-off establishment, and give the punch line, "But they won't take American Express." Yes, he is a Rhodes Scholar, but that's about it, and Wikipedia won't take his article. Okay, that joke fell flat. Sorry. YechielMan 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added some references. There are many reviews and descriptions of his books. Being a Rhodes Scholar is not in itself notable, but being a Fellow of an Oxford College could well be notable depending on what the Fellow has done. In this case I suggest his publications meet WP:PROF. It needs more work. If it is not deleted, it will be reasonably easy to add references to this article from other articles. --Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key concern is that notability still doesn't seem to be backed up by tertiary or secondary sources. All the sources that were added seem to be from his employer, his coauthor's employer, or pitching the book. Do you have any independent sources to back up a case under WP:PROF? MrZaius^talk 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just came across this at AfD and thought that a Fellow of an Oxford University College with several books was likely to be notable. Many Oxford Fellows would be full Professors in another university if they moved, but they choose to stay at Oxford as a College Fellow and University Lecturer. Most of the references I added do not address notability, I agree. They address verifiability. The first confirms he wrote one book. The third confirms the forthcoming book and that it is written with a coaurthor, a colleague in the University Dept of English and a Fellow of another College. The 4th and 5th confirm that he is a Fellow of Brasenose College and some of the statements about his specialty. The second however is an independent review in a reputable journal of the other book mentioned, so that points towards notability. I had hoped that including this in two relevant deletion sorting lists would attract others who know more about him and English studies than I do to add more references. Since they have not, I will look for more sources. --Bduke 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references including some reviews of his books. There are other reviews, some from countries other than the UK. His books are used in other universities. I can not however find a CV, so much information is missing. However it seems he has a D Phil from Oxford and was at Liverpool University in the 1990s. This article needs work from an expert in this area, but I still think he is notable enough for an article. --Bduke 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Does not appear to meet criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). being a Fellow of an Oxford College could well be notable depending on what the Fellow has done, Indeed - so it would depend on what he has done, not on his being a fellow. Has he done anything notable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Additional input meets WP:N[reply]

It depends whether you think writing books that have been well reviewed and are used in other universities is notable. I think it is although I would like more information about him. How would you judge the books? --Bduke 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify exactly which criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is met, and why. Stop with this "How would you judge the books" guff. I would judge the books as lacking any claim to notability. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Well it is question of interpretation of that guideline. The reviews seem to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". He appears to meet "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course". The second point does need referencing in the article, but a Google search shows at least Bristol University uses one of his books. My argument at this stage is simply that it seems valuable encyclopedic material and I would like to see more people improve the article, rather than blanket demands for deletion. --Bduke 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which review seems to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources"? Are you asserting that at least one of his books is a significant and well-known academic work? My argument at this stage is that criteria have been established for notability, and it it reasonable to impose a test against those criteria at any point, not least after a month and a half on wikipedia. Hoping that something better will come along if a non-notable article is left in place would in all cases negate a deletion request based on non-notability; as such it appears to be an illogical argument. --Tagishsimon (talk)

"Doing Shakespeare is an original and long-overdue resource for theatre scholar-artists" (Ref 3). I do not see someone doing that without being a significant expert. "I cannot think of another critic since Empson who has teased out so much so lucidly and (usually) so persuasively from the intricacies of Shakespearean language" (ref 5). That seems significant to me. It is the basis of at least one course. I did not say leave it in place. I said I wanted an expert to come along and work on it and meant while this AfD is running. If nobody does, it probably will be deleted. I just do not think that makes the encyclopedia any better. I also note that there is considerable disagreement about the notability guidelines, particularly at WP:N. But anyway, I'm leaving it to others to judge the evidence and hopefully provide more. --Bduke 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: took two minutes in JSTOR to find all the reviews anyone could possibly need showing that his books are considered important by the English literature community, and another ten minutes to add references to his enormous contributions to the article. If you're going to say that his books lack any claim to notability, you'll need to look in the journals where these types of books are reviewed. There's where you'll find the notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. We're not going to say his books are not notable. We were asking whether they are. You have answered the question well enough to sway the argument. And that is one of the things AfD is good for. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Sorry if my tone was harsh -- might be the extraordinary heat where I am now! I know that not everyone has access to JSTOR or a library with Shakespeare Quarterly, etc. However, for English language academics in the humanities and some social sciences, a tiny search on JSTOR can immediately make an editor say "Whoa! This should be a major article, not an AfD!" When I forget that it's not an easily accessed resource, I hope others here will give me a gentle nudge (or a swift kick in the pants). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll blow cool air onto your fevered brow, kindly! --Tagishsimon (talk)

• Keep. Research before nominating articles for deletion is your friend. Rebecca 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flyaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable to Wikipedia standards; term usage cannot be found through any reliable sources. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if term has usage outside author and his group of friends, it still doesn't make it notable enough for wikipedia. Even if it were it still seems to be completely unrelated to encyclopedia content and i can see no way it could be expanded on at all. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merriam Webster defines "flyaway" as "loose and flowing especially because of unconfined fullness at the back". This simply takes that word and turns it into slang for loose hair. In essence, this is little known fashion slang that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --David Andreas 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge back to Genie in the House. Walton^talk 14:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Genie In The House episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cut and paste from Genie In The House. Rackabello 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the House Unneeded list.--Ispy1981 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. NSR77 ^T_C 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to the root article, per the nomination. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed episode list from main Genie In The House page, as it was getting too long, and added new episodes. New to this, hope I haven't done wrong. Rayhol 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to the show article. It's fine per WP:SUMMARY and WP:FICT to split off sections if the article gets too long, the main article does not appear to be so long as to require splitting. No prejudice, should the article continue to grow, to re-splitting the section. Otto4711 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Otto 4711--JForget 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vonbehren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No 3rd-party references at all, no other accomplishments asserted. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, et al) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. PROD tag added, but removed by Wikihermit (talk · contribs) with the comment removing the prod; take it to AFD like the other articles - which is pure process-for-its-own-sake, but if that's what he wants, that's what he'll get. Calton | Talk 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous AfDs I suspect more of these will show up.--Ispy1981 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This person has not by any stretch won any national title (eg Miss Teen USA), so fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mind explaining why, as opposed to cutting-and-pasting the same sentence into multiple, unrelated discussions? --Calton | Talk 23:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun With Akatsuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable YouTube-hosted parody of an anime series. Entire article is just a plot summary of the episodes. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB and WP:NOT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh fun! Delete of course. YechielMan 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- See above — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLamb (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately non-notable, though mildly amusing. cab 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Youtube videos can become notable (e.g. Will It Blend), but these are not. No reliable independent third parties are discussing them. --Charlene 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sakujo. ...sorry, wrong series. Delete per nom. --tjstrf talk 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable... --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leda and the swan (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating by proxy per this request, though I agree with the requestor's assessment. No assertion of notability, no sources at all. WP:BAND/WP:N//WP:CRYSTAL. /Blaxthos 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Non-notable MySpace band searching for publicity.--Ispy1981 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (my request) Johnbod 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JJL 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertions to notability, no references. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rename. Peacent 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Herb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not cited and non-notable. ~ Wikihermit 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per lack of assertion of notability Rackabello 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not impressed (aka speedy delete per above) The only thing I could find were blogs and a threadbare description on an 80's site that would seem to suggest it was more popular than the article is letting on. If anyone from that era knows anymore, step forward.--Ispy1981 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• REOPENED, reverted to pre-closed state. It doesn't qualify for a speedy, as near as I can tell. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article contains one sentence, so maybe can go under a {{db-nocontent}}, but seems doubtful. I would be more inclined to stick with a standard delete because it is not critical. At any rate, the nom has it right - the article says the advertising flop was infamous, but doesn't give an explanation beyond that. Uncited, unreferenced, and no real information on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, now I remember the commercials, but the commercial is still not notable for its own article. But the discussion below has the right idea - Merge and redirect to the main Burger King article's advertising section. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm reviving this discussion. The page was deleted by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) but after consulting with him, I think the AfD should go through. First of all, this really does not match any of the speedy deletion criteria. Secondly, this ad campaign did exist and is remembered as one of the most awful campaigns of the 80's. Now I'm not sure anyone can dig up solid sources to construct a decent article but it's not completely impossible. A simple Google search for "I'm not Herb" + "Burger King" finds 19 hits, most of which are wiki-related so there isn't much there. But it also shows that this was referenced to in a song of Maestro Fresh Wes! This at least shows that the whole thing was, at the time, notable enough to appear in rap lyrics. I guess what I'm trying to say is: I don't think we should keep this article as is but ideally someone would dig up solid references (which would probably be in advertising/marketing magazines of the 80's and thus, not available online) and expand the article into something worth keeping. Pascal.Tesson 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I wasn't even around for most of the 1980s, but I've heard of these ads and how they cut into BK's sales, and they seem to be semi-well known in pop culture. A Google search for just "Burger King" + herb gave a few good results, like this one, this one, this one, and this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd add those sources to the article; however, I think the page needs a rename first. Maybe "Herb (Burger King commercial)"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can't you add the sources first? It'll still be time to move the page to wherever once this debate is closed. Moving it now will just create confusion right now. Pascal.Tesson 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just redirect to Burger King advertising#History? The paragraph on "Where's Herb?" has more information than this "article" ever contained. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. And that paragraph could actually be expanded using TPH's sources. Pascal.Tesson 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, but I think the campaign is notable enough to stand alone, seeing as it's commonly cited as the chain's biggest flop. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Where's Herb?. Article has sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. It may not have been good for the chain's image, but it was widely talked about (at least to deride it). As it is considered a notable marketing flop, it probably should have information about that. Alternately redirect to Burger King advertising as above. --Dhartung | Talk 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A notorious enough flop to get its own entry; rename per Dhartung. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merging or moving to Where's Herb are still possibilities but should be simple editorial decisions. Kudos to the editors who have expanded and sourced this one. Case has clearly been made that deletion would be a mistake. Pascal.Tesson 22:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename Famous ad campaign _SUBWAYguy 03:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dominguez (baseball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Considering that he was a first round draft pick I say We keep it for now but if it turns out he doesn't go pro we delete it then ChrisLamb 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think the related AFDs on other draftees from this year have closed, but I have yet to change my opinion of their lack of notability. YechielMan 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not garuntee much of anything. //Tecmobowl 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, Wait until he plays with the Marlins.--JForget 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Squad players in notable cricket and football teams aren't included here unless they play. There's a vast number of players of all sports who are eligible by wikipedia's guidelines, these shouldn't be stretched to include those who aren't, even if they are 'first round picks'. If he's any good he'll play and there'll be something to put into his article. Nick mallory 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the notability should be there before the article. --Stormbay 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. ChrisLamb's suggestion is exactly the opposite of the way things are handled here. Notability doesn't expire or get taken away. We don't say "this person has a shot to some day become notable, so let's have an article for now and take it away if it doesn't pan out." If the person does not yet meet notability guidelines, then no article yet. Get back to us when he meets the guidelines. Mwelch 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Heyward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing a malformed nom here. Personally, I don't think the page should be deleted; a previous discussion resulted in "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I didn't notice the previous nomination when I listed this. --fuzzy510 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having been drafted as a #1 pick of an MLB club is most assuredly notable, and while not official, it is a foregone conclusion that he will indeed sign with the Braves. Additionally, I would imagine that his selection and inclusion to such events as the Aflac All-American High School Baseball Classic and the Perfect Game Top Prospect Showcase should qualify as the highest levels of amateur high school baseball. MichaelProcton 07:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, but article needs to be expanded, re-written, and more references given. Callelinea 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus I don't believe that wikiproject guidelines should trump the general notability guide and there are plenty of sources that make this individual independantly notable. Secondly, I don't see the point of deleting this just to undelete or recreate it later just to satisfy a process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ahrens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sources for this person and he was drafted into Major League Baseball.++aviper2k7++ 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: per the (albeit, unofficial) standard set forth by WP:Baseball, minor leaguers are not inherently notable. This kid is not just a minor-leaguer, but he hasn't even played a game yet. --fuzzy510 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't matter if there's sources for him.++aviper2k7++ 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Drafted by a Major League team, you can't use speculation, "[h]e might not choose to go pro," as rationale for deleting an article. Just because you speculate something doesn't mean that's what's gonna happen. There's a rule against speculating in an article, and that same standard goes for deleting an article. You can't delete an article (or nominate it for deletion) because he "might not" be notable. Being drafted by a Major League team makes him notable because, on the contrary, he "might" play for that team. It works both ways. Just like in Football, when you have a penalty on each team, they offset. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WEak Delete Wait until he play in the majors.--JForget 23:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP, I don't like Baseball, but I looked in google and he has many listing in it. He is notable.. Article needs to be expanded and more sources placed. Callelinea 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't trust everything you see in Google. Morgan Wick 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He was referring to the amount of sources available in a quick Google search.++aviper2k7++ 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many listing[s] in it" doesn't tell me that, it just tells me there's a big number of hits. Morgan Wick 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep' Comment: as a first-round MLB draft pick. That's a precedent used in NHL, see: 2007 NHL Entry Draft#Round 1 and Category:National Hockey League first round draft picks. Canuckle 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - and the same precedent for MLB first-round picks has been to not keep them. It's really only fair to compare apples and apple here. --fuzzy510 18:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where do they keep that precedent? Is it worth an edit to WP:BIO? Then nominators could cite it and everyone would be on the same page from the beginning of the AfD. I get the point that baseball drafts may be unlike other sports, as per MLB: "The Major League Baseball Draft is among the least followed of the professional sports drafts in the United States, possibly because other professional sports drafts feature players who will immediately start to play for the team they are drafted by that next year, whereas the MLB has an extensive minor league system to help players mature and hone their skills to be able to compete with those in the major leagues." However, this draft was the first to be televised live. We may see more of these discussions as more public attention is given to draft-eligible players. This player was picked in the first 25 picks and has signed a $1.4 million USD contract. I'm not sure , if you exclude the draft, if that's enough to make him notable but he's getting there. Canuckle 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it's not an official policy, the baseball WikiProject keeps a notability standard here which, so far as I can tell, is held in decent regard. Notice that it specifically mentions that most minor leaguers aren't notable, not to mention draft picks who might not even be minor leaguers. --fuzzy510 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Thanks for the link. I apologize for not seeing your citation at the start of the discussion. I completely missed it earlier. I agree that "most" minor leaguers are not notable (the project page actually says "generally not notable"). First-round draft picks aren't mentioned at all. That leaves us to assume what it means, and that's not wise. What baseball accomplishment would make a high-school graduate who is just starting his minor-league career notable for Wikipedia? I've changed my vote from Keep to Comment. I'm not sold either way yet but it sounds like there's merits on both sides of the discussion. Canuckle 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per precedent, baseball players are not notable until they have played a gam in the majors. Caknuck 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The precedent is if it has the sources, it is notable. This is clearly noted on Wikipedia:Notability.++aviper2k7++ 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try WP:BASEBALL#Notability, which trumps the general notability guideline. Morgan Wick 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What? That's a Wikiproject page. Notability is based on how many sources are available for the player. The reason why minor league players wouldn't be considered "notable" would be because there isn't much being written about them. All of you seem to be caught up in these changing guidelines and ignoring how many sources are available about this player.++aviper2k7++ 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps WP:BLP1E is more to your liking, then? --fuzzy510 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources. It does not apply.++aviper2k7++ 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and it all boils down to him being drafted. So why isn't it applicable? --fuzzy510 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed, wait till he plays a pro game --Bill.matthews 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kozma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Withrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, I think it is a bit too earlier for his case to have an article - wait until he does play for club.--JForget 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Alderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and has decided to instead play collegiately. College players are not considered inherently notable. --fuzzy510 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Many argued in the Allison Stokke AFD that numerous newspaper articles about high school athletes still do not justify articles. Edison 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 18:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Main (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and apparently will play collegiately. Collegiate baseball players are not considered inherently notable. --fuzzy510 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, needs serious cleanup. Sr13 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An alert editor at WP:COIN identified this article as original research and a conflict of interest. Its content comes exclusively from User:Knowledgemachine, who overturned a prod request. The user page identifies the writer as the same man who is cited in two of the three reference. I don't see how to rewrite the article to a neutral point of view. YechielMan 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Although the current article needs a major clean-up it appears there is material out there.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though an academically interesting topic, this is original research written in a very vague and non-academic format. --David Andreas 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cleanup. Hacking through all the verbiage and ignoring the sections about other aspects of knowledge processing, the author states that (a) knowledge creation and acceptance is necessary for society to advance, (b) the person who thought it up can keep it to himself/herself or inform somebody else, and (c) the process can be broken down into five (unspecified naturally) steps. Well, duh. Ironically, for an article about knowledge creation, it does preciously little of it. Still, it does seem to be an academic field, so I'm reluctantly changing my vote. Clarityfiend 05:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup soon, or otherwise, delete it. Bearian 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless major rewriting is done quickly.--SarekOfVulcan 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There may be a detail or two which can be added to Knowledge Management, but that looks unlikely. — Athaenara ✉ 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up. Knowledge creation is an important subject, if not to 'knowledge management', at least to the history and philosophy of knowledge (but then is it in a sense so different that it should be another article altogether?). I quote the words of NeniPogarcic in the Talk page on June 26th:

"(...) Polanyi and Nonaka's ideas are widely popularized and accepted. Rightfully or not is a discussion which we can have, but it is probably the most important theory and the widely used one, so therefore it definately should be in it!"

"I think we should revert it to how it was, and elaborate it from there"

So, this is another keep or clean-up that could be added to mine. Robert Daoust 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active NBA Players Who Have Won A Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listed for deletion previously, but deserves discusion first I have informed the original nominator of this and invited him to explain the reasoning ChrisLamb 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Thanks Chris. I'd like to cite: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, would only be of interest to a limited number of people, would be very hard to maintain, and WP:LISTV#Think of the reader. I really don't think it's very encyclopedic, either. <odd conversation with myself> I'll save everyone the trouble: Cool Blue, have you considered that you are violating (the essay) WP:UNENCYC?

<sarcasm>Oh no. What ever shall I do? I hope they don't block me</sarcasm> </odd conversation with myself> Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that it's not historically significant either. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' Agree with above comment - Fails WP:NOT#INFO - Not the place of sprawling statistics Corpx 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In a related story players that did not win any Championship complained about the lack of media attention for them.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. Not a necessary article and contains useless statistics. NSR77 ^T_C 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We probably don't need this type of list. They also are high maintenance and (historically) quickly neglected. --Stormbay 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per most of the above, and also WP:SYNT. Carlossuarez46 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd also like to add that the article will not be historically significant. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, several of the keep argruements were invalid, minor league players got deleted via AFD many times before, but the high school award he got gives notablity, making several of the delete ones invalid as well, lets wait and see if this kid makes the majors in a couple of years, if not this article can always be re-AFD. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Porcello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All baseball players (and other athletes) are getting their own pages. Whether he plays in the MLB or not, he was drafted by a Major League team and is technically in their organization. Since he's on the team, he shouldn't have his article deleted. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's actually not how the MLB draft works at all. If a player chooses to go to college, he can later be drafted by another team. If he goes to Carolina, the draft is the extent of his association with the team. --fuzzy510 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't mean in the organization in the sense that he could be called-up tomorrow or anything like that. But he was drafted by an MLB team, nonetheless. Whether he wants to play for the team that drafted him or not, until he announces that he is gonna go back to college or play for the team, you have to use the assumption that he will play for the team. He was drafted by a team, but could and might go back to play college baseball. "Could" and "might" implies that it is speculation. Since he "could" play college ball, that's speculation and I don't think that can (or should) be used as the rationale for deleting an article. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's some sources for him and he was named 2006-07 Gatorade national baseball player of the year. That in itself is "notable" if that's what you want to go by. If there are sources for the player, this article should be kept.++aviper2k7++ 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, article is sourced, and the Gatorade connection is another bit of (somewhat marginal) notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also have that same opinion, and think that ALL the articles you've nominated for deletion should be kept. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. Granted, the gatorade thing is mentioned, but I don't see a significant amount of importance placed on that in the world of baseball. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's not notable about a player winning a National award? Well, there are articles for professional players. He's on his way to being a professional baseball player. Look, a couple days ago was the 2007 NHL Entry Draft. Most of those players who were drafted that didn't have articles then have articles now because they were drafted.

Yeah, I guess I agree with you, Tecmobowl. Let's delete every single article on an athlete because they didn't win World Series MVP or a Super Bowl. And if they didn't win a Conn Smythe Trophy, let's delete their article, as well. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries.Allison Stokke had lots of press coverage of her high school athleticism (before her notability for other reasons) and the article was deleted largely because editors judged high school athletes non-notable. Edison 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Porcello is not only a first-round draft pick, he has received independent, non-trivial coverage in national newspapers as winner of the Gatorade national baseball player of the year, which is awarded to one -- and only one -- player per year, joining such notables as Drew Henson, Alex Rodriguez and Gary Sheffield, as well as being selected for a national all-star team. Per WP:BIO, notability is established when the person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and if the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, both of which are established in the article. Not all players drafted deserve articles. Notability has been clearly established for Porcello. Alansohn 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one (as opposed to the other HS draftees). Porcello has received more independent non-trivial press coverage for his various accomplishments than the others. I would argue that top-10 picks are notable, and Porcello, by most accounts, would have been one except for a "subplot" (draft slot and Scott Boras) that increases his notability and the amount of coverage about him. SliceNYC (Talk) 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd disagree that "first round" or "Top 10" or "Top X" draft picks should be assumed notable. If all the guy is is a draft pick out of high school who hasn't played yet, then no notability should be assumed. It should come down to providing references to non-trivial secondary source coverage on him. In this case, though, those secondary source references are present and have been provided, so this subject clears the bar. Mwelch 03:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is exactly what it should come down to. No guideline can cover up the fact this article has the sources to be kept.++aviper2k7++ 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Most baseball players who are drafted never even make it to the big leagues, talk about an article when and if he did, otherwise start your own baseball wiki. IvoShandor 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - How does that even matter if there are enough valid sources to write an article on the person.++aviper2k7++ 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP, he is notable. Plenty of secondary sources.. How many persons get drafted at his age? Some of you guys have your standards way to high. If a major team is willing to bet millions on a kid and sport writers across the country write about him. What makes us armchair editors think he isn't notable.. Do a little reasearch before you decide someone is not notable. Callelinea 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable - no accomplishments beyond highschool and even nothing notable at high school level Corpx 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I say wait until he plays in the majors, then he will meet WP:BIO, even it's just one game he played.--JForget 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per precedent set for other MLB draftees who have yet to play pro ball. Caknuck 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Campanella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner for 2007. No other accomplishments, only a few local media references. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, Sommer Isdale, and Kari Schull) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. PROD tag added, but removed by anon IP, so here it is. Calton | Talk 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not every single winner of every single local competition in the world needs an article.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just as beauty fades in time, so do beauty queens and their notability - unless they win the Nobel Peace Prize or something. --David Andreas 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007 where there is a list of the state winners who will compete. The state pageants receive TV and newspaper coverage within the state, so an argument for inclusion could be made, but certainly mention in the article on the national pageant is appropriate. Edison 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This person has not by any stretch won any national title (eg Miss Teen USA), so fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yes she is notable. Callelinea 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mind explaining why, as opposed to cutting-and-pasting the same sentence into multiple, unrelated discussions? --Calton | Talk 23:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Sr13 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Calaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Deletion was proposed with the reason "She is the wife of a wrestler who has done little else of note, so she beat DDP once and hasn't been seen on WWE for at least three years, not a reason for an article. Notability is not proven." Has been twice deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (No assertion of significance), although i think there was enough of an assertion that A7 probably should not have been used. Sourcing at best dubious. I am bringing this to AfD to get a consensus on the notability or otherwise of this subject. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I have no defiante opnions on whether this subject is notable or not. Bringing it here for consensus to form. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Dubious third-party sources (most are misleading links). WWE doesn't list her anywhere. Basically, the wife of the Undertaker.--Ispy1981 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the The Undertaker per notability concerns. Addhoc 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect' - per Addhoc. Being associated to someone notable doesn't mean you inherit their notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Using Category:American professional wrestlers, I searched over 150 articles about wrestlers to see how other Wikipedia articles handle wrestlers' wives. I found 18 articles in which a wife was mentioned; in 7 of those, the wife had her own Wikipedia article. All of the 7 had specific notability within the wresting or entertainment industry. If the wife had no specific notability, there was no specific wife article. On the [15] website, a search for Sara Calaway reveals zero results, meaning Sara is not notable in the wrestling world. Treating her like other wrestlers' wives, she is not entitled to her own article, nor to a Redirect. The information in her article could be added, where appropriate, to The Undertaker article. In fact, much of it is already there. Then this article should be deleted. Truthanado 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all the info is at her husband's page. Darrenhusted 23:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, she isn't notable. Nikki311 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per most of the comments made above, this article was on my list of pending deletions actually. Burntsauce 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G1. --S ^up? 19:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Forman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Simply a hoax, and not a very good one at that. Sent to AfD because prod removed. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article, from the same author:

Otto Keresztes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Speedy delete - gone. The Rambling Man 18:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bead game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unencyclopedic and unnotable. Sent to AfD because a prod was removed Iknowyourider (t c) 18:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably also delete Image:P6060282.JPG, which was used in a previous version of the article. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reeks of WP:MADEUP. fuzzy510 19:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Nonsense Corpx 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not Patent Nonsense, and so is not a proper speedy delete. However, it does not look encyclopedic aor notable either. Delte, unless notability can be established through Reliable Sources added to the arricvle, which i tend to doubt. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. The official Facebook group has all of 1 member. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless referenced, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day may apply. Staecker 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article has a bad case of made-up-in-school-itis. Only website listed that's relevant is on Facebook - and literally anybodycan create something on Facebook. Not even notable in the slightest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Strong delete per WP:NFT. Also speedy the aforementioned Image:P6060282.JPG. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that WP:NFT although a reason for deletion, is not a speedy deletion criterion. DES ^(talk) 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Idiotic and not notable ChrisLamb 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Delicti (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability and completely unreferenced article. As it stands now, fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC /Blaxthos 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Not notable.--Bryson 18:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - doesn't fail WP:BAND as per point 5 - two of their albums were released on Cleopatra Records. Lugnuts 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also note that there are album articles that should similarly be grouped in this discussion. fuzzy510 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but how can you say it's a non-notable group when it clearly meets the crietira on the WP:BAND page. And I quote: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: Then check item 5. Maybe the nominator would like to refresh themselves on this criteria. Lugnuts 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you continued further on that same criteria, you'd see that it clearly stated that two or more albums needed to be released on a major label or one of the more important independents. Cleopatra Records is certainly not a major label, and I'm not willing to call a label which is apparently mostly known for its compilation releases a more important independent label. With that judgment, by no means does the band in question clearly meet WP:BAND. --fuzzy510 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is were Wikipedia becomes a victim of it's own policy on Weasel words! As Cleopatra has an article on WP, it makes it important by default. It's been going for "more than a few years" (again, a weasel statement) and has a roster of notable performers (under the Market dominance heading). Again, these performers are notable, as they too have articles on WP. Lugnuts 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Cleo's star has definitely fallen over the years (too many stupid comps), they have published a large proportion of the Gothic scene's major artists and I'd say that having had full albums released by them is a good pointer towards importance in the scene/genre. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you read the description it gives as to what constitutes a more important independant label, you will notice that it defines it as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable", so here we have a label with a history dating back 15 years, and having signed Gary Numan, Electric Hellfire Club, Switchblade Symphony, Leæther Strip, X Marks the Pedwalk, Mephisto Walz, Kill Switch...Klick, Information Society, Heaven 17, Download, Noise Box, and Razed In Black. I hope I've made my point. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the fact that they've had two albums on Cleopatra Records. I would think that the label is marginally notable enough (not just because they have a Wikipedia article). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - TenPoundHammer expresses a good point; the band has released two records on a semi-notable record label. NSR77 ^T_C 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Nominator is perfectly familiar with WP:BAND.  ;-) As noted by Fuzzy, I wouldn't go so far as to call Cleopatra a major label. The criteria is major label or a important independant label. This fails BOTH criteria (major label, or an important independant label). I will conceed, however, that this is dependant upon if you view Cleopatra Records as an important indie label or not. Cover compilations don't cut it, IMHO, but that's why we have AFD debates.  :-) /Blaxthos 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first time I've actually read WP:BAND and I was quiet interested with what's in the criteria! Point 12 however, is a complete joke! Lugnuts 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the criterion. It clearly gives a description as to what constitutes an important independant label. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable band in the Goth scene. In the context of the Gothic genre, Cleopatra is a major label and having full-length albums released by them definitely counts. I wouldn't count necessarily being featured on Cleo compilations as being enough, but full-length albums, definitely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by having 2 compilations (including a best of album) released on Cleopatra. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonescape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Monzo. The Joe Monzo vanity article was recently deleted and this is a little-known piece of software created by him. It gets only 43 Google hits which is unimpressive for software. Fails WP:CORP, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable software Corpx 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The software is notable in that very few programs exist for the express purpose of composing microtonal music. It may be commercial, but it was developed "in the open" with the online community of microtonal composers. The fact that it has relatively few Google hits is probably due to the fact that it is a relatively new program in its first official release. -- DaveSeidel 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's quite a unique piece of software, with a highly original approach to computer-aided composition. It's also a resource pedagogically when it comes to learning, teaching, or exploring tuning theory. Gene Ward Smith 03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not seeing much about notability. Where are the independent reliable sources to establish notability? All I see is a piece of software that few have heard of. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure whether it should be kept, but I've edited some of the more egregious ad-like copy out of the article. And the Google search above currently returns 182 hits. Probably it's not notable as a piece of software, but it may be notable from a music-theory perspective. CKL
• Keep It's relevant and important primarily for its unusual and useful nature. There simply isn't other equivalent software. This isn't just another word processor or solitaire game. It's exactly the sort of thing I like to find on Wikipedia -- I may not have heard of it any other way. -71.87.34.189 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's still in alpha, but is looking to be a *very* promising tool for the composition and analysis of microtonal music; it is, indeed, *very* noteworthy, though a little specialist. If you talk to people actively involved in the microtonal community, there's a very, very high chance that they've heard of this and tried it out . -134.226.81.3 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can the article be expanded using reviews, or articles about positive or negative features at this time other than from its authors, the Tonalsoft website or different yahoo groups? - Mireut 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Tonescape is not only notable for its own intrinsic merits -- it's also historically important as a piece of computer software. It is the first serious music composition software which exploits the use of pitch space, a concept which music theorists have been discussing for centuries, at least since Euler. Tonescape's Lattice window does not just give a simple, static depiction of a tuning's harmonic properties, as do other programs such as JICalc for the Mac and the multi-platform Scala -- Tonescape's Lattice is a 3-dimensional rotatable view that depicts tunings which have up to 7 dimensions in their harmonic makeup, and as a user explores chords on the Lattice, he can then drag them over to the score and simply pop them into a piece. The geometry of a temperament can also be shown in "closed" form, which twist the Lattice into a helix or torus ... i'm sure there is no other music software which can do this, only such applications as Mathematica etc. -Starky32 01:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced article that seems like original research. Spam tag has been on the article for a while, and it seems like this article only exists to promote this "philosophy". Article includes spamlinks, and was written by the espouser of the philosophy (WP:COI). /Blaxthos 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator - Promotional material/Original research Corpx
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this business philosophy is not yet notable. --Gavin Collins 08:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Moreton, Lord Moreton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I did a little editing on this article based on information in other wikipedia articles that are now wikilinked. Then I went to find Reliable references I was unable to find any. Jeepday (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. Even when this young man succeeds to the barony he may not meet WP:BIO because hereditary peers are no longer automatically members of the House of Lords (the upper assembly of the UK Parliament - his father was a member before 1999 and therefore meets WP:BIO). --Charlene 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above argument about notability Corpx 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is just a courtesy title at present-- but when he does succeed it will be to a Dukedom, & I think then he'd merit an article for at least the higher nobility will remain N, even if not in Parliament.DGG 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment *cough* to an Earldom, DGG, not a Dukedom. A bit down the line. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at best merits brief mention in his father's article, and the Earl of Ducie, which already exist. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. His father is just a Earl, but if he does succeed, he will be notable. An Earldom is still the second level of the British peerage. --Bduke 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment *cough* third, behind dukes and marquesses. --Charlene 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mea culpa. You are right, but an Earl is still notable. --Bduke 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No accomplishments or references to satisfy WP:BIO. He does work at a power station, per the article. Is that enough to justify an article in Wikipedia? Perhaps the above commentors who were confused about Dukes versus Earls were just thinking of Gene Chandler, who in 1962 became the Duke of Earl [16]. Edison 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability is not inherited at this level and I dispute whether any ole earl who hasn't done much or been much in the news is notable. Carlossuarez46 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Walton^talk 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Bucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not even sure this article asserts notability, but I could use help wading through the broken English and the (mainly Italian, and not terribly impressive from what I can tell) google results I'm getting. Claims to be a music teacher, composer, musicologist, etc. but none of it seems to add up to much. Calliopejen1 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]